13.5% of all traffic fatalities in the U.S. are bicyclists (1.8%) or pedestrians (11.7%). Reads 14% on graph.

In the 51 largest U.S. cities, 12.7% of trips are by foot and 1.1% are by bicycle, yet 26.9% of traffic fatalities are pedestrians and 3.1% are bicyclists.

Seniors are the most vulnerable bicyclists and pedestrians. Adults over 65 make up 10% of walking trips, yet comprise 19% of pedestrian fatalities. Seniors make up 6% of bicycling trips, yet account for 10% of bicyclist fatalities.

These modes of transportation receive only 1.6% federal transportation funding.

In a nutshell... walking and cycling are not favored by our "transportation" system, and produce an inordinate number of fatalities.

This graph is missing info. On the first bullet they broke out the percentages for pedestrians vs bike fatalities but they didn't break out percentages for % of trips. And I don't think a 12% trip rate vs 14% fatality rate is exactly inordinate. That's almost 1:1 which is what you would expect.

Seems like the report focuses entirely on commuting "trips" and doesn't consider other riding or walking, though the accident and fatality numbers they use don't make that distinction and come from all riding and walking. In more sparsely populated states, towns and cities are small and people tend to live in the town they work in, which makes walking or riding more practical. In more densely populated states with big metro areas, people often wind up living much farther from work so walking isn't practical, and sometimes cycling isn't either. My commute is 30 miles one-way, and though I do ride it on occasion, it's not reasonable to ride routinely.

This graph is missing info. On the first bullet they broke out the percentages for pedestrians vs bike fatalities but they didn't break out percentages for % of trips. And I don't think a 12% trip rate vs 14% fatality rate is exactly inordinate. That's almost 1:1 which is what you would expect.

The graph is a bit strange in that it combines the ped and cycling data and the y coordinate is just to illustrate percentages... I had to look at it a couple times before it sank in... the accompanying numbers help to clarify it... I think this bullet point really drives the point home:

In the 51 largest U.S. cities, 12.7% of trips are by foot and 1.1% are by bicycle, yet 26.9% of traffic fatalities are pedestrians and 3.1% are bicyclists.

Something that I noticed as well, and since ped and cycling infrastructure generally lasts far longer due to lower stresses put on it, one would think it would be a wiser investment to add more funding on new or updating construction.

Something that I noticed as well, and since ped and cycling infrastructure generally lasts far longer due to lower stresses put on it, one would think it would be a wiser investment to add more funding on new or updating construction.

Something that I noticed as well, and since ped and cycling infrastructure generally lasts far longer due to lower stresses put on it, one would think it would be a wiser investment to add more funding on new or updating construction.

Well, by that same argument pedestrian and cycling infrastructure *needs* less funding simply because it lasts longer and can support a larger number of "trips" for a given amount of money (as pedestrians and cyclists are smaller than cars.)

Also I should mention that cyclists generally use transportation facilities that are probably counted under facilities made for cars rather than bicycles. (It also wouldn't surprise me if sidewalks are often included with the price of roads, but I'm less sure of this.) Also, "federal transportation funding" isn't really the ideal thing to look at, as most transportation funding isn't federal.

While I like the idea that we need more pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, the reality is that there's no reason to assume that this graphic shows that there is some sort of problem -- the devil would be in the details. (The reality is probably that we should spend more on it, but this graphic doesn't really properly show why.)

Well, by that same argument pedestrian and cycling infrastructure *needs* less funding simply because it lasts longer and can support a larger number of "trips" for a given amount of money (as pedestrians and cyclists are smaller than cars.)

It also be that more road maintenance/building funding has not kept up with inflation and is being diverted away from new/upgraded ped and cycling infrastructure.

Our state's road funding priority is first to pay their service debts on borrowed money for roadway construction/maintenance, then whatever is left goes towards infrastructure.

It also be that more road maintenance/building funding has not kept up with inflation and is being diverted towards away from new/upgraded ped and cycling infrastructure.

I imagine that certainly could be said (I haven't looked -- I don't know if that's true or not as I have not researched it. If you're saying it's true, I'll believe you) -- but that graphic does not say that. It just talks about one particular point in time.